Fred Thompson on Gun Control – again – yet again
28 Responses to “Fred Thompson on Gun Control – again – yet again”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
But he didn’t say anything about standing up for my right to own a 30mm chain gun, so clearly he is Sarah Brady’s best friend and has sold our gun owners!
September 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Well, honestly I do want to see him do more than just sit back and let what’s going on now continue. He doesn’t give any indication (in his two sentences) that he’d repeal some of the laws he finds cause onerous restrictions.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
1. “Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.”
Which existing laws, the ones that say my barrel has to be so many inches long, or that it can’t be quiet enough to avoid hearing damage, or the ones that get people in jail for technical errors on BATF paperwork?
2. “Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.”
Which ones, exactly? How about the ones we were guaranteed, the ones we were born with, and yet do not enjoy? Is Fred going to come out in support of Vermont-style carry, and if so, why not say it? Is he going to get rid of the 1986 machine-gun ban? How about GCA ’68? Would he be in favor of jailing me for putting a shoulder stock on a revolver? What if I accidentally left my wallet at work and went shopping with my pistol (and not in possession of my permit)? Would he favor slapping me with criminal charges, thereby destroying my family and my business over a minor, innocent technicality?
All Democratic candidates favor such things, but with Republicans, who knows? They won’t talk about it. So far.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
It is precisely that sort of nit-picking that gets on my nerves.
We cannot have our cake and eat it to when it comes to gun control. It is simply not a political reality to expect a presidential candidate who would advocate nationwide concealed carry sans permits.
Does that mean that I don’t wish we could have such a candidate? Of course I do. But instead of looking for reasons to tear a guy (Fred) down; perhaps we should evaluate the importance of getting a truly pro-gun president elected first.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
All Democratic candidates favor such things, but with Republicans, who knows? They won’t talk about it. So far.
Okay… and?
If your other choices are the completely gun-grabbing Democrats, kinda gun-grabbing RINOs, or Ron Paul (who’s page doesn’t seem to mention the 2nd, and I think he voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, so he’s neither perfect nor likely to win, either)?
Hell, I hate to be the compromise guy, but I’ve got no problem choosing the lesser of several evils.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Oh, I’m still in for Fred at the moment, don’t get me wrong, but I’d love to hear a little more “I’m going to unclusterf*ck the gun laws”.
It would just make me happier, that’s all.
And Ahab, I’m allowed to nit-pick. It’s what politics are all about. 😉
September 18th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Ron Paul has repeated affirmed his defense of the 2nd in debates and advocated pilots be armed on airlines. Paul would REPEAL many federal gun laws, and also eliminate the IRS. What a crock of shit from Fred – Bush said the same thing about guns too – don’t read too much into it.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I just can’t get all warm and fuzzy for a guy that voted for the Laughtenberg amendment.
Wasn’t there a poll on here just after the AWB died where Laughtenberg was on the list of things we’d like to see done away with next? I wonder where it ranked in priority…
September 18th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Not that high, Mr. Buist.
It’s also hard to get pissy at someone who voted for an omnibus bill just because of one aspect of that bill — those things covered thousands of laws, many of which were far from bad. That specific law also doesn’t cover everything that’s associated with the name (bans on those with some types of restraining orders are under the VAWA, for example).
Lautenberg and associated laws are a real pain in the backside, a foundation for a lot of other bad laws, and can be used to strip possessions or jobs from law-abiding folk… but they’re also a good way to keep unlawful folk from tarnishing our reputation more than necessary, and popular with the Suzi Soccer moms in a way we’re just not likely to get past any time soon.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:12 am
I’m also sick of all this talk about “president-so-and-so would abolish such-and-such”… that ain’t how it works folks. I don’t care what Ron Paul promises, unless you pack the Congress with libertarians, most of his dreams wouldn’t come true just because he was sitting in the White House.
I prefer a strong federalist who has a chance at making meaningful changes in our government to a libertarian who promises a near-revolution, but can’t deliver on his promises.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:20 am
But you see Greg, the president directs the policy of the executive branch and congress just funds it. Just as we see the BATFU making rules against gun ownership, the Paul administration would tell them otherwise. Just as easy as Bush sent troops to Iraq, Paul would bring them back. Airport strip searches? Gone. National ID card? Gone. Federal Reserve? Gone. Department after meaningless department would be eliminated and congress would be powerless to stop him. Sure congress could cut funding to programs – but all the better to help bring liberty to our people!
You seem to say the Constitution is bad because it’s ‘revolutionary.’ I think it’s the only law that can save this nation. What more of a meaningful change can you ask for than to respect the bill of rights??
September 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
HardCorps, you really think the President can just snap his fingers and all that disappears? Billions of dollars worth of investments, manpower, etc and it all just ceases to exist? Besides, that’s a lot of power to give a single person.
Yes, we need those changes, but they can’t (and won’t) happen until the population wants them to happen. Sucks, but that’s life.
Sorry, Ron Paul is not our savior. He has no chance of winning an election. His foray into the race though will practically push Hillary! into office though.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Ok, I admit it, I like Ron Paul – on paper. There is something about a strict Constitutionalist that just caters to whatever political bone I have in my body, and there is no way around it.
That said, he stands a snowball’s chance in a very large nuclear reactor of winning the Republican nomination, much less the Presidential election. He is too radical, too hardline, and just plain whacky.
Fred may be questionable on a lot of things, there is no doubt about that. His stance on firearms is considerably less… solid than I was hoping. But given the rest of the field at the moment, he would be the one I vote for. That is not saying a lot about the other candidates, but there it is.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I appreciate you taking the time to find that. I guess it is a really low priority issue after seeing those results.
Ah, but he didn’t just vote for the omnibus bill. He voted ‘Yea’ on the amendment itself. Granted, 96 other senators did, so I guess it seemed like the thing to do at the time. The only two ‘Nay’ votes came from Democrats, oddly enough.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Whatever way you want to justify your vote is up to you – my morality states I will never support evil, especially the lesser of two evils. Is time for us conservatives to wake up an realize the party has been hijacked and we’re fucked if we pick someone who doesn’t want to end the war. Excuses for fred aren’t going to win over any democrats, and if fred does get elected he’s end up at the minimum agreeing to a timeline for withdrawl so he even has a shot.
Bush fucked up big time in most people’s minds, and its going to take a radically different person to convince voters to even consider someone with an R behind his name. Ron Paul is a not the same R that Bush and the neocons are – he can and will get democrats to vote for him; I’ve held campaign signs with them!!
Freedom is popular. Voting for Paul is the morally right choice, the best political choice, and the only choice to restore liberty.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Straight from Paul’s official campaign:
Ron Paul’s Pro-Gun Legislation
H.R. 1096 (Paul): This bill would (1) repeal the Brady law and Instantcheck Gun Owner registration system; (2) repeal federal provisions discriminating against firearms which the government determines to have no “sporting purpose,” and (3) repeal the requirement that trigger locks be purchased by anyone purchasing a handgun from a dealer.
H.R. 1897 (Paul): This bill would prohibit any federal regulation banning the possession or carrying of a firearm based in whole or in part on the fact that the possession or carrying occurs within a national park.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Barring Executive Orders, how, exactly, does he propose to pass those bills, HardCorps? It is not exactly like they are going to materialize out of thin air.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Those were bills he has sponsored which show his unwavering commitment to the 2nd because some people want to distort his gun rights voting record. If you have ever read any of his multiple columns or books you’d understand quite well he believes the government shouldn’t even INFRINGE upon our firearms rights.
Any why should we bar executive orders used by President Paul? Shit – hundreds of thousands of troops were sent to war 6k miles away without congressional declaration of war, why couldn’t he eliminate the BATFU with a stoke of his pen?
Can you conceive of that?? Could you handle the thought of a M16 costing $1000? Or a M249 on sale for $3000? Can you handle freedom? It’s just on the other side of these assholes who threaten us. It exists – they just deny it from us and we deny our selves the courage to live in liberty.
A world without concealed carry?? I probably wouldn’t even carry if there wasn’t such a dire threat to my right to do so. “smoke ’em if you’ve got ’em…”
September 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Slow down, there, HardCorps… you are starting to sound just as whacky-taffy as your God and Savior. First, good on him for sponsoring those bills. Would you care to illuminate just what happened to those bills, however? If I had to guess, they failed miserably, but that is just a guess. However, if that is indeed the case, is that not indicative of the outcome of any future attempts he might make down the same path? Sure, past history is no indication of future performance, but doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result… well, you know the rest.
I barred executive orders because the concept has become so remarkably abused over the past few years, I have an intense dislike of them. For that matter, considering that there is no concrete basis for executive orders contained within the US Constitution, where would Paul, supposedly a “strict Constitutionalist” get off using them?
I can handle freedom just fine, thank you kindly. What I cannot handle is frothing-at-the-mouth individuals such as yourself who have no concept of how to negotiate, bargain, and make advances through carefully planned steps as opposed to outright, full-frontal, no-holds-barred charges right into the teeth of those opposed to you. Because that has worked so well in the past. I do agree with you that we, the American people, have allowed this to happen to ourselves. But there are enough people who live in fear and ignorance of firearms out there, that they will oppose us at every step we take. Furthermore, massive amounts of laws and organizations are not just going to disappear in a heartbeat. A lot of lawmakers have a lot of constituents/funds/votes/etc. riding on those items, and they are not simply going to give them up because you tell them to.
Politics is all about compromise and negotiation. You cannot simply walk onto the floor of Congress, say, “This is how it is going to be, and that is that,” and honestly expect people to fall in line. You will be steamrolled by the hundreds of other politicians, and forgotten. Period.
Furthermore, the President is not a king. He is not a dictator. He is not a grand poobah. He cannot simply show up one day, sign a piece of paper, and abolish hundreds (thousands?) of laws and organizations. The American governmental system simply does not operate in that fashion – one would think someone like yourself who espouses the Constitution so much would understand that. That much power is too much for any one branch of the government, which is why there are checks and balances in place.
Do I think Paul might be able to get some reforms through? Sure. But only in exchange for other things. However, hardliners, without the support of the governmental body behind them (like, say, the Congress), never get anywhere.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
HardKook:
God, you’re dumb. Lemme guess: did you simply assume there was no Congressional authorization for the war because your Bircheresque crackpot of a hero said there wasn’t? Or do you think that your dear leader is the only real Congressmen, so if he didn’t personally authorize the use of force in Iraq, “Congress” as a body must not have done so, either?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
“frothing-at-the-mouth individuals.” Hell, I kinda like the way that sounds. That’s such a great ad hominem attack, I think I’ll take ownership of inspiring that phrase.
I appreciate the lesson on the nature of politics, but I assure you I know full well the orgy of lies, backstabbing, and atrocities.
Look how far politics have gotten us Linoge. I could wax eloquently about the Constitution and our founding fathers – but alas, I am now drunk.
I started this post at about 530 then my Marine buddy called me to the local pub and now I’m back to get my girl and were going to play trivia at another microbrewery. I love living in the NW.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Ha ha Xlrq!! Thats a resolution not a declaration of war!
“Of the ninety-nine joint resolutions that became law in the 103d Congress, for example, eighty-three were items of commemorative legislation.” – answers.com
Are you trying to create a holiday or win a war?? God I wish I could be drinking with you bastards instead of living in this socialist cesspool. I guess we’ll just have to bitch on the intertubes.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Sez you, and your kooky hero Paul. The Constitution, however, says no such thing. All it says is that Congress has the power to declare war, it doesn’t say that such a declaration has to come in any particular form, let alone one satisfactory to you.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:55 am
Well if it was such a righteous act to go to war in Iraq why didn’t we declare it? But regardless of the technicalities, what good reason was there for us to go? Why should 3000+ American soldiers die for the ‘freedom’ of Iraqis? I didn’t declare an oath to the Iraqis – I declared an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The war is a failure no matter what way you cut it – put back on your conservative cap where we agree with the founding fathers that we don’t meddle with other countries.
You want to know what else the consitution says?
It says. “Congress shall have the power: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”
Jiminy-fucking-Chirstmas man, can’t you see we’re approaching political crimes in this country? Yea – I voted for Bush too and I fucked up. We’re human and we fuck up, but good men learn from their mistakes and correct their actions. We were wrong on Bush and the ‘war on terror’ so lets own that and learn from our mistakes and chose the right. Freedom must be the goal of our efforts – not compromise. We have given so many of our liberties already, what more can we give for what in return? We are batering our freedom for what?? Giving up freedom to get freedom back? It doesn’t make sense man – once you lose your liberties you can’t get ’em back without spilling blood. We compromise too readily with the most precious gift God has given us – which of course we have no right to give up. How about when you tuck your kids in at night you think about the world you compromise and negotiate away from them and then tell me we need more of the same. Is there no more courage left in American men? Will we not chose right over wrong and tell the scavengers and thieves no?
I pray I am not alone in these sentiments.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:55 am
Because we did declare it, Legal Eagle. That’s what an AUMF does. You’ve just quoted the part of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to declare war. Now go find the part that says what form a declaration of war must take. Oops!
Yeah, just keep feeding yourself that September 10 nonsense, and eventually you’ll believe it. Maybe you’ll forget that there ever was a 9/11, or at least stop wondering why there have been no comparable attacks since. Your lord and savior says 9/11 happened because we had troops on the Arabian peninsula, well, we have a hell of a lot more of them now, so why aren’t 9/11 style attack happening all the time? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that we invaded Afghanistan – that war was “illegal” since the AUMF for that war didn’t have the magic words you are whining about any more than the one for Iraq did. Nor could it have any connection whatsoever to the eeeevil Patriot Act, which crushed the God-given right of criminals to act suspiciously around one government agency without getting ratted out to others. And it certainly had nothing to do with those pesky NSA wiretaps, which crush the civil rights not only of international terrorists but also of Americans in the habit of talking to them. Nor does it have one iota to do with the fact that for all its problems, Iraq
fault, and the fact that no similar attacks have followed has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we crushed bin Laden’s safe haven (illegally, in your book, since that war was also declared by AUMF, not by a declaration of war in the ither)
/11? Or wondered why we haven’t experienced any similar attacks since?
Soldiers give up their freedom all the time, but what the hell kind of freedom have you given up? Are you posting from some secret prison
September 21st, 2007 at 6:57 am
Because we did declare it, Legal Eagle. That’s what an AUMF does. You’ve just quoted the part of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to declare war. Now go find the part that says what form a declaration of war must take. Oops!
Yeah, just keep feeding yourself that September 10 nonsense, and eventually you’ll believe it. Maybe you’ll forget that there ever was a 9/11, or at least stop wondering why there have been no comparable attacks since. Your lord and savior says 9/11 happened because we had troops on the Arabian peninsula, well, we have a hell of a lot more of them now, so why aren’t 9/11 style attack happening all the time? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that we invaded Afghanistan – that war was “illegal” since the AUMF for that war didn’t have the magic words you are whining about any more than the one for Iraq did. Nor could it have any connection whatsoever to the eeeevil Patriot Act, which crushed the God-given right of criminals to act suspiciously around one government agency without getting ratted out to others. And it certainly had nothing to do with those pesky NSA wiretaps, which crush the civil rights not only of international terrorists but also of Americans in the habit of talking to them. Nor does it have one iota to do with the fact that for all its problems, Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists, as it almost certainly would become if your dear leader finally got his way.
Soldiers give up their liberties big time, but that’s their choice. What the hell liberties have you given up? Are you posting from some secret dissidents’ prison or something? Get real.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
And not only did they declare it, they keep funding it too.
After all, if the Prez was doing it all by his lonesome against congress’ wishes, they could always remove the funding, and they’d have to come home.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Check out the hit piece on Fred Thompson, including a few things the media never talks about. To read it go to thirdrailradio.blogspot.com